Skip to main content
Glama
MarkAC007

mcp-server-scf

by MarkAC007
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

scf_create_risk

Create a new risk assessment in the risk register using 1–5 likelihood and impact scores to populate the 5×5 risk matrix.

Instructions

Create a new risk assessment in the risk register (write — editor+ role). Likelihood and impact scores populate the 5×5 risk matrix.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ownerNoName or identifier of the risk owner
titleYesRisk title (required, max ~100 chars)
impactYesInherent impact on a 1–5 scale
org_idYesOrganization UUID — obtain from scf_list_organizations
control_idNoSCF control ID to link (e.g., 'AST-01') — obtain from scf_list_controls
likelihoodYesInherent likelihood on a 1–5 scale
descriptionYesRisk description (required)
treatment_statusNoTreatment workflow status (default identified)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv3.4.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / treatment_status / description
      Previous value: -"Treatment status: 'mitigate', 'accept', 'transfer', or 'avoid'"New value: +"Treatment workflow status (default identified)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / treatment_status / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "identified",
+  "analysed",
+  "treating",
+  "treated",
+  "accepted",
+  "monitoring"
+]
  2. First observedv1.7.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly implies a mutation but not destructive. It adds the 'editor+ role' requirement and the fact that likelihood/impact populate the 5x5 matrix. This goes beyond annotations by specifying who can call it and the resulting matrix behavior. However, it doesn't warn about side effects like creating a default treatment_status or triggering notifications, but that's minor given annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, with two sentences that are front-loaded with the primary action and key constraints. It avoids redundancy. Slight deduction because it doesn't mention the optional parameters (owner, control_id, treatment_status) that an agent might need to infer, but overall it's well-structured and quickly digestible.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the 8 parameters (5 required) and no output schema, the description could have provided more context on how the risk assessment integrates with the risk register, such as the significance of the treatment workflow or how the matrix is used downstream. However, the schema's thorough parameter descriptions and the explicit mention of the matrix partially compensate. The description is complete enough for an agent to call correctly, but not exhaustive about side effects or return values.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters, including required fields and valid ranges. The description adds no additional parameter-level context beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema fully covers semantics, and the description doesn't need to repeat them.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Create a new risk assessment in the risk register'), specifies the target resource, and distinguishes it from related tools like scf_create_custom_risk by focusing on the risk register's 5x5 matrix. It also notes the write nature and required role, making its purpose unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use it: when creating a new risk assessment in the risk register. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like scf_create_custom_risk or distinguish from scf_update_risk_assessment. No explicit 'when not to use' guidance is provided, leaving some ambiguity for an agent comparing siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools